Pentagon Demands Journalists Sign Pledge

#26
#26
volfanhill said:
It does both.

"DoW remains committed to transparency to promote accountability and public trust," the document said. "However, DoW information must be approved for public release by an appropriate authorizing official before it is released, even if it is unclassified."

Using the rebranded "Department of War" acronym, "DoW," the 17-page document obtained by NPR outlining the new rules for the media says those who fail to obey the new policy will lose their press credentials — cutting off access to the headquarters of the largest department in the U.S. government.

"DoW remains committed to transparency to promote accountability and public trust," the document said. "However, DoW information must be approved for public release by an appropriate authorizing official before it is released, even if it is unclassified."

As far as the movement and access part goes that is well within the pentagons prerogative
Click to expand...
I asked Gemini what are the classification levels. I edited the reply to bullet points to make it quicker to read. It looks like the new policy, or the report about the new policy, is focused on the last classification (I kept the explanation for clarity).

*Top Secret
*Secret
*Confidential

In addition to these core levels, there are other categories and markings that control access and dissemination, such as:

*Special Access Programs (SAP) and Sensitive Compartmented Information (SCI)
*Controlled Unclassified Information (CUI): This is a category for sensitive information that does not meet the criteria for national security classification but still requires protection under law, regulation, or government-wide policy. It replaces older markings like "For Official Use Only" (FOUO).
 
#28
#28
McDad said:
I asked Gemini what are the classification levels. I edited the reply to bullet points to make it quicker to read. It looks like the new policy, or the report about the new policy, is focused on the last classification (I kept the explanation for clarity).

*Top Secret
*Secret
*Confidential

In addition to these core levels, there are other categories and markings that control access and dissemination, such as:

*Special Access Programs (SAP) and Sensitive Compartmented Information (SCI)
*Controlled Unclassified Information (CUI): This is a category for sensitive information that does not meet the criteria for national security classification but still requires protection under law, regulation, or government-wide policy. It replaces older markings like "For Official Use Only" (FOUO).
Click to expand...
So, nothing has changed from previous administrations. None of this is new policy with the markings, they have always been there and always been used, including FOUO and CUI.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Rickyvol77 and McDad
#29
#29
rjd970 said:
So, nothing has changed from previous administrations. None of this is new policy with the markings, they have always been there and always been used, including FOUO and CUI.
Click to expand...
I can't say. Something has changed because a new (or amended) policy has been introduced. I gather from the article the unrestricted access inside the Pentagon is changing.
But when the article brings up "unclassified" it isn't defined. I can only guess it is existing FOUO and CUI.
 
#32
#32
volfanhill said:
So you've become as spineless as a liberal from 2020-2024?
Click to expand...
Nope, just pointing out that the Constitution only matters to liberals when they are out of power. The rest of the time it is a „breathing living document“ with a wide „penumbra“ of possible interpretations .

I don’t like censorship when we do it either. Let the marketplace of ideas deal with the Kimmels of the world. His ratings would have eventually done him in just like Colbert. All Trump and Carr did was speed up the process but creating a lib martyr in the process. Strategically an „own goal“
 
  • Like
Reactions: Orange_Crush
#36
#36
NorthDallas40 said:
You know there’s a very simple solution here. Maybe the personnel in the Dept of War (lol) could just keep their damn mouths shut and not tell journalists anything they don’t want released to the general public? 🤷‍♂️
Click to expand...
Or do like Bush and Schwartzkoff and tell them the wrong information to throw off the enemy 😂😂😂
 
#37
#37
OrangeTsar said:
Nope, just pointing out that the Constitution only matters to liberals when they are out of power. The rest of the time it is a „breathing living document“ with a wide „penumbra“ of possible interpretations .

I don’t like censorship when we do it either. Let the marketplace of ideas deal with the Kimmels of the world. His ratings would have eventually done him in just like Colbert. All Trump and Carr did was speed up the process but creating a lib martyr in the process. Strategically an „own goal“
Click to expand...

IMO his ratings had already done him in, and the Colbert firing and Kirk controversy gave ABC/Disney cover. Follow the money.
 
#38
#38
McDad said:
@rjd970 Glockers excerpt shows this is about CUI.
If correct, what are your thoughts?
Click to expand...
It’s always been that way. There is no change for CUI and FOUO. For CNSI, there would obviously need to be a background check and need to know before access is granted via a security clearance and that information needs to be tightly controlled.

The change is now there appears to be political motivation for who has unclassified information and who doesn’t. Or, they are requiring a pledge that only state approved messaging can be reported. It’s an attack on independent media. The endgame slippery slope is state run media, which we should all be against.

I don’t care what administration is in office, this is wrong and I’ve said as such in the past as well. Bush and Obama were notorious for over classification to control narratives, and in the case of Bush with WMDs, DECLASSIFYING information to make his political case.
 
  • Like
Reactions: hog88, volfanhill, McDad and 1 other person
#39
#39
rjd970 said:
It’s always been that way. There is no change for CUI and FOUO. For CNSI, there would obviously need to be a background check and need to know before access is granted via a security clearance and that information needs to be tightly controlled.

The change is now there appears to be political motivation for who has unclassified information and who doesn’t. Or, they are requiring a pledge that only state approved messaging can be reported. It’s an attack on independent media. The endgame slippery slope is state run media, which we should all be against.

I don’t care what administration is in office, this is wrong and I’ve said as such in the past as well. Bush and Obama were notorious for over classification to control narratives, and in the case of Bush with WMDs, DECLASSIFYING information to make his political case.
Click to expand...
Sounds like you're saying, even without the pledge and restrictions, information dangerous to troops stationed, or in battles, or jeopardizing our hardware, tactics, etc wouldn't be available to the press anyway.

Correct?
 
#40
#40
McDad said:
Sounds like you're saying, even without the pledge and restrictions, information dangerous to troops stationed, or in battles, or jeopardizing our hardware, tactics, etc wouldn't be available to the press anyway.

Correct?
Click to expand...
I’m saying the definition of the information hasn’t changed from what it’s always been, but now access has been. It’s either that, or they are now broadening the definition and only allowing access to media outlets that toe the state line.
 
  • Like
Reactions: McDad
#41
#41
OrangeTsar said:
And just like that; liberals suddenly pretend to care about the Constitution again 🙄

Amazing how quiet they were when Biden was pressuring social media to ban conservatives or anyone questioning Covid. Or when Biden kept trying to cancel Student loans without congressional approval. Or when Obama forced people to purchase health insurance. Or when Buden pressured private companies to fire workers who refused the jab.
But of course, all those things were (D)ifferent.
Click to expand...
The whataboutism doesn't help. It's not a zero sum game. You should certainly know that by now. Bad for the country, which is the people, is bad for the country, full stop. Many have denounced both Biden's and Trump's authoritarian moves and those of their predecessors.
 
  • Like
Reactions: volfanhill
#43
#43
Glocker_Alum_2005 said:
The Pentagon on Friday announced sweeping new restrictions on journalists covering the Defense Department, requiring reporters to pledge they will not obtain or publish any information — even if unclassified — unless it has been expressly authorized by the government. BTW, released on Friday evening (classic Friday news dump tactic).

www.weareiowa.com

Pentagon demands journalists sign pledge restricting information gathering

The Trump administration said it will revoke the press credentials of journalists who do not comply with the new pledge requirements.
www.weareiowa.com www.weareiowa.com
Click to expand...
yeah eff that.

if they can't operate in the open air, they shouldn't be operating.

its always been the job of the journalists to dig for dirt, and any real info they can get their hands on.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.
Advertisement

Back
Top